Canadian grain act ...review

[Blaithin]

Grain is graded every time it's touched in an elevator.

Probed for receiving; graded.

Blended to get cleaned; graded.

Cleaned; graded.

Transferred to a different bin; graded.

Loaded on the train or truck; graded.

The logic that it shouldn't need graded at port unless the terminals aren't trusted is kind of silly. The terminals themselves recheck themselves multiple times. And things still fall through the cracks. Terminal staff, when trained, are still trained in basics only. I know a company that had a large load of malt that made it to the coast before anyone caught that it was the wrong variety. That's not on the terminal staff.

Different destinations also have different leeways. Container ships have little leeway, what's loaded in the car has to be on spec. Large ports with the ability of heavy blending can help make what arrives more on spec for the boat it's supposed to hit. Some sales have a broader range of specs to hit than others.

Also, most know this, or should, that GrainCos take advantage of the amount of grain they handle by blending in off spec to move it up in quality. They will do this at every chance they get. If they have feed screenings or sprouts or heated or lower grading grain for whatever reason and they have it at port, they will grade what's incoming on trains so that they know what they can blend in of those off spec grains.

It may be me being less negative towards the overall ability of terminal staff - but I do not see grain being graded at port as a sign of not trusting inland graders. It is the companies initiating good business sense and seeing where they can further blend product and increase their margins. Why would anyone expect them to load right off the train onto boats if they can blend up a few thousand more tonne per ship?

[blackpowder]

Bucket. So perhaps one role for cgc would be inspecting sampling protocols?

[blackpowder]

Glad to have your input Blaithin.
It seems a lot of older farmers dont know and a lot of younger farmers dont want to know.

[bucket]

Bucket. So perhaps one role for cgc would be inspecting sampling protocols?

Have to think about that,,,,but grading a super B on a teaspoon or less of grain certainly seems stupid. Especially the smaller the sample the greater the error.

[bucket]

Also, most know this, or should, that GrainCos take advantage of the amount of grain they handle by blending in off spec to move it up in quality. They will do this at every chance they get. If they have feed screenings or sprouts or heated or lower grading grain for whatever reason and they have it at port, they will grade what's incoming on trains so that they know what they can blend in of those off spec grains.


That one paragraph , which we all know....makes me wonder why we need a code of practice for farmers...

Not that what the graincos do is illegal , they have every right to blend and profit....but why tell farmers to this and that to a code of practice.... only to have a grainco mess with grain bought to hit the lowest spec ...or add in deershit and then blame farmers....

[blackpowder]

Have to think about that,,,,but grading a super B on a teaspoon or less of grain certainly seems stupid. Especially the smaller the sample the greater the error.

By protocol i meant chain of evidence etc. No harm in you receiving a bag of your sample if you want. Especially if transparency builds trust. If I want them I call them germ tests LoL. It's how i treat the staff that gets results.
Studies have been done on the statistical variabilities regarding sampling procedures. I had lunch once with an Intertec engineer who conducted such studies. If only those studies could be published eh? Maybe something for a producer group or the CGC to look into bahaha.
One un manageable variability was ergot %s.

[Blaithin]

Glad to have your input Blaithin.
It seems a lot of older farmers dont know and a lot of younger farmers dont want to know.

I wish I could grade grain once on arrival and never worry about it again. My back would appreciate it! Lol

I'm not well versed in the CGC's abilities but there's definitely room for improvement - more so in the enforcement area as told. That said, it wouldn't all be great and convenient for farmers. Then pendulum would swing both ways.

Anyone ever see the CGC recommended probing for trucks? Going off memory, CGC recommends each hopper of a Super B to be probed 5 times, one in each corner and one in the middle. That's 20 probes each load. Currently most terminals do one insert in each hopper, trying for the deepest section, so you have 4 probe locations with the lowest chance of hitting anything on the truck.

Now think of anytime you've heard people say probing took too long, joked about how much grain probing takes, or how many times a bar or slope has been hit. Multiply that by about 5 to reach what the CGC recommends compared to what's usually done in practice and put it in locations on the hopper than increase hitting the truck.

Now consider, do you think it's really going to change what the grain grades by doing more probing? Is it only going to change the grade to improve it or is there not equal opportunity that it could lead to a downgrade.

Also, have you ever tried blending in or trying to sneak something in on a load. It happens, terminals know it happens. Screenings, feed, tough.... whatever it is. Are you more likely to get caught doing this if the CGC starts enforcing that particular recommendation. Could it in fact come back to bite farmers in the butt more than helping them. Increased wait times, increased grain lost into that dump box in the grading office, increased equipment wear and tear, chance of upgrade vs downgrade.

I don't know all the ways the CGC could benefit the farmers by backing them up, but don't get carried away thinking all enforcement would benefit farmers. Nothing is ever all positive.

[Blaithin]

Also, most know this, or should, that GrainCos take advantage of the amount of grain they handle by blending in off spec to move it up in quality. They will do this at every chance they get. If they have feed screenings or sprouts or heated or lower grading grain for whatever reason and they have it at port, they will grade what's incoming on trains so that they know what they can blend in of those off spec grains.


That one paragraph , which we all know....makes me wonder why we need a code of practice for farmers...

Not that what the graincos do is illegal , they have every right to blend and profit....but why tell farmers to this and that to a code of practice.... only to have a grainco mess with grain bought to hit the lowest spec ...or add in deershit and then blame farmers....

Off the top of my head, why would a code of practice be needed for farmers would be largely for chemical usage reasons and environmental reasons. Those are big concerns with the consumer market in today's age.

Most grading factors are an affect of the nature of the growing year, or sometimes some sort of storage issue. But a code of practice would be more along the lines of farming practices. A GrainCo, or even a very large farmer, has some ability to help improve the grades through blending. They can't change the practices that grew the grain. If an export market wants no till grain without a certain chemical used the GrainCo's can't do anything about that except put a call out for it. It's up to the farmers to meet those export requirements.

A Code of Practice should cover all aspects of the chain, from production to transport to terminals to export. You can't leave one piece out.

[CptnObvious]

Where did you get the 80% number from? I asked when I was on port tour and nobody would say they said that was confidential. Just like how many cars are showing up at port that don't make the grade specs that are suppose to be in the car. Or the audit reports of the dockage taken by elevators compared to the actual dockage at port or removed.

From the exporters...they might be inclined to push the number up a bit.

[bucket]

Off the top of my head, why would a code of practice be needed for farmers would be largely for chemical usage reasons and environmental reasons. Those are big concerns with the consumer market in today's age.

Most grading factors are an affect of the nature of the growing year, or sometimes some sort of storage issue. But a code of practice would be more along the lines of farming practices. A GrainCo, or even a very large farmer, has some ability to help improve the grades through blending. They can't change the practices that grew the grain. If an export market wants no till grain without a certain chemical used the GrainCo's can't do anything about that except put a call out for it. It's up to the farmers to meet those export requirements.

A Code of Practice should cover all aspects of the chain, from production to transport to terminals to export. You can't leave one piece out.

Fair comments but if you have a farmer that says he didn't spray preharvest glyphosate on his durum according to his "code of practice" and the shipment gets found to have it ...who are they going to ?????

Considering that some bags at the elevator are confused occasionally.

[CptnObvious]

Bucket. So perhaps one role for cgc would be inspecting sampling protocols?

Yes, they should. Screens, scales, and everything.

[blackpowder]

And there you go, common sense input from a worker in the terminal industry. Awesome.

[wmoebis]

The grain act does not regulate how grain is handled it gives the CGC the power to regulate how it is handled through the regulations and Guide. I understand why CGC inward inspection was no longer needed. My question is why if elevator employee grades it when car is loaded why does it need to be graded again when it is being unloaded? How could have it change in transit? Not like when it is being cleaned/ transferred/ or blended at elevator and re grading was needed. It all costs $. When CGC was going to elevators to cert cars as they were being loaded there was no need for them to be reinspected at unload and yes they could be direct hit to boats if we were loading to shipping specs in that case the CGC inspected again to make sure that the over all boat hit shipping specs as it was being mixed in the boat.

What parts of the actual ACT do people want to see changed?

Degree of soundness, Damaged and foreign material are going to be factors that effect price doesn't matter if it is assessed as grades or as individual factors and it doesn't matter if it is assessed visually by trained people or mechanical. It doesn't matter if the graders pay check comes from the grain companies, CGC or third party it is the training and quality of work that is important. I'm sure There is lots of elevator employees that are as good or better graders than anyone else. It comes down to training and monitoring to make sure they are staying on task.

[wmoebis]

Have to think about that,,,,but grading a super B on a teaspoon or less of grain certainly seems stupid. Especially the smaller the sample the greater the error.

The most important thing in assessing grain is that it is a representative sample of the whole lot of grain. That is why the CGC will not use a remote probe sample as an official sample. Even if their own employees are operating the probe. A hand probe sample with samples probes as per instructed in sampling book, a hand sample taken as per instructed or a certified cross cut sampler are the only official sample systems.

Once that sample is taken maintaining the representation of that sample is the next most important that is where the proper use of equipment comes in and following the prescribed methods in the Guide accurately.

[Blaithin]

Fair comments but if you have a farmer that says he didn't spray preharvest glyphosate on his durum according to his "code of practice" and the shipment gets found to have it ...who are they going to ?????

Considering that some bags at the elevator are confused occasionally.

Well then that's where the act and the code of practice needs farmer input to ensure traceability.

Cattle have CCIA tags, what does grain have? It needs to be shown without a doubt that it IS the farmers grain in order to fall back on the farmer.

There's an enforcement that can be done. Are the terminals keeping the minimum 1KG of grain on site, for the required period of time, in case something comes up and it needs re inspection.

Could something be added that the farmer is also given a 1KG bag of each load to keep for records. They get their delivery receipt and a bag of grain with all factors listed. (Do farmers want tubs and tubs of their grain on hand each year?)

In the Code of Practice hoohah being kicked around, should it be pushed that farmers are well versed in representative samples of each bin and keep those on hand for a certain period of time as well. For back up.

What can be done to better improve the integrity of kept samples. If they're going to become a representative portion to back up something more than grading factors on a sales contract then there needs to be more assurance of them.

If chemical residues are going to be such big players, should harvest samples be sent in for the tests? Is there a way to have a quick test on hand for deliveries? If grain is found to be chemical free at time of delivery, write it in that it can't be brought back on the farmer if it's "discovered" at a later date.